PDA

View Full Version : Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. C.C.W. Bill


kalguns
07-20-2009, 2:34 PM
Below is what is going up for vote. The F-22's got the axe today 7/21/09. The CCW is going to vote 7/22/09.(According to this article. http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/19296)

Call your Senators!!

WASHINGTON — A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," he said.

Thune's bill was offered as an amendment to a $680 billion defense spending policy bill and could further slow completion of that must-pass legislation.

Debate on defense issues, including a controversy over whether the Pentagon should buy more F-22 fighter jets, was already delayed by time spent on a measure to expand federal hate crimes law. Under the proposal, hate crimes would also cover acts of violence based on the gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.

Thune's bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried.

It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states — Wisconsin and Illinois — that do not allow the practice.

Opponents threatened delay tactics with the aim of subjecting the gun amendment to a 60-vote majority for approval. The amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said. Timing for a vote on the amendment was uncertain.

The Senate on Monday also approved remaining amendments to the hate crimes bill, including one describing when perpetrators of hate crimes will be subject to the death penalty and another creating a new federal crime for targeted attacks on members of the military or their families.

On Thursday the Senate adopted the body of the hate crimes measure by voice after voting 63-28 to overcome a GOP-led filibuster. The bill, promoted for more than a decade by ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., expands those categories covered by hate crimes and makes it easier for federal authorities to aid state and local prosecutions or take over cases when the local authorities can't or are unwilling to pursue them.

Current law, dating back to 1968, covers crimes motivated by race, color, national origin or religion.

Managers of the defense bill hope to get back on track Tuesday with a vote on the biggest dispute surrounding the measure, which authorizes defense programs for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

President Barack Obama, backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, says there is no need to produce more F-22s beyond the 187 already in the pipeline and has threatened to veto the Senate bill unless it removes $1.75 billion for seven more jets. It would be the first veto of the Obama administration.

Obama and Gates argue that the money for the jets, which cost about $140 million each, can be put to better use equipping the military to fight today's unconventional wars. Supporters of the F-22, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., point to the 95,000 jobs directly or indirectly tied to F-22 production.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the top Republican on the panel, John McCain of Arizona, have sponsored an amendment to strip the $1.75 billion from the bill.

The defense bill is S. 1390.

gn3hz3ku1*
07-20-2009, 3:50 PM
if it passes.. im going utah ccw :)

rkdrsx
07-20-2009, 4:20 PM
It would be great if it does pass with the ccw amendment still in place. I will feel bad for those that loose their jobs in the F-22 program.

Stanze
07-20-2009, 5:08 PM
Crossing fingers.

KWA-S
07-20-2009, 5:21 PM
5 years ago, we would never have expected to see Congess working on pro-gun bills, like this and the National Parks CCW. Heres to the progress of another 5.

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 5:54 PM
5 years ago, we would never have expected to see Congess working on pro-gun bills, like this and the National Parks CCW. Heres to the progress of another 5. 5 years ago they weren't in a position where they knew if they didn't do some things we like they'd be tossed on their *** at the first available opportunity. They know we don't like the guy in the White House or MHC and their minions so they'd better keep us at least happy enough not to gut their whole party and system from top to bottom IMMEDIATELY. We're keep getting better informed and networked all the time so this keeps them on better behavior because they're on thin ice.

hoffmang
07-20-2009, 7:36 PM
Here is the actual text of the proposed amendment:


SA 1618. Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Coburn) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D.

If it passes as is it would do the following interesting things:
1. CA Residents would not be allowed to CCW in CA on a UT permit.
2. A CA resident in possession of a UT permit would be able to carry everywhere except CA, IL, DC, and WI.
3. A WA resident would be exempted from the Gun Free School Zones act when carrying in CA on his WA resident permit.

-Gene

NSTLLMNGR
07-20-2009, 9:12 PM
I just got this from the ATF regarding Montana's rights..

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/071709-montana-openletter.pdf

MrClamperSir
07-20-2009, 9:18 PM
They sent an identical letter to Tennessee. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204394

SmokinMr2
07-20-2009, 9:20 PM
Same **** they are sending all over town.

Gonna be interesting to see if any of the states that claimed their soverign rights are willing to back it up...

FS00008
07-20-2009, 9:21 PM
So who wants to take bets as to how much longer the BATFE will be around?

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 9:25 PM
Well, the question not yet asked is if the ATF is gone then who will handle the NFA administration, or will that be automatically freed up with the ATF thrown out?

Jpach
07-20-2009, 9:25 PM
I cant wait until Montana and TN make their moves! Hopefully the rest of the US and even CA follow over time.

I have a dream!

MrClamperSir
07-20-2009, 9:26 PM
So who wants to take bets as to how much longer the BATFE will be around?

Only if all states had the kahones.:)

tyrist
07-20-2009, 9:28 PM
Well, the question not yet asked is if the ATF is gone then who will handle the NFA administration, or will that be automatically freed up with the ATF thrown out?

Treasury department

bodger
07-20-2009, 9:30 PM
So who wants to take bets as to how much longer the BATFE will be around?

I must confess ignorance on the subject, Why would they not be around?

HotRails
07-20-2009, 9:30 PM
I cant wait until Montana and TN make their moves! Hopefully the rest of the US and even CA follow over time.

I have a dream!


Might as well dream big eh?

Werewolf1021
07-20-2009, 9:40 PM
Honestly, I would tell them to shove it. Wasn't Montana thinking of seceding anyway?

Unless of course they send in the federal helicopters with Bruce Willis... then they might be in trouble.

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 9:50 PM
So, fine, FFLs have to follow the Federal Law. Whatever. The state doesn't need an FFL to buy arms. Let's not forget that the state can arm militias. And if the state says I'm in the militia, and arms me, or authorizes me to be armed under that authority, the Federal government can't do a thing about it. Even a relic like a collective rights theorist couldn't wiggle out of that one.

M198
07-20-2009, 9:51 PM
The people of Montana must follow federal laws if they are to keep their FFL and sell guns from other states. I don't know of a single gun maker in Montana. If they want to continue to sell Colt, Springfields, Smith and Wessons, etc, they must follow the ATF laws to keep their FFL. If a gun shop in Montana starts selling guns that are 100% produced in Montana, that's fine, but they will lose their FFL. It's that simple.

NSTLLMNGR
07-20-2009, 9:53 PM
Montana promised to arrest any federal agent who tries to interfere with their plans to do their own thing. Then the **** will hit the fan. I would love to see Obama try to pull martial law on them.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 9:56 PM
Gene wouldn't it also make it a no carry on UT permit in Nevada too? Too bad it just doesn't do a shall issue across the country for any state that allows CCW.

Vectrexer
07-20-2009, 10:01 PM
The people of Montana must follow federal laws if they are to keep their FFL and sell guns from other states. I don't know of a single gun maker in Montana. If they want to continue to sell Colt, Springfields, Smith and Wessons, etc, they must follow the ATF laws to keep their FFL. If a gun shop in Montana starts selling guns that are 100% produced in Montana, that's fine, but they will lose their FFL. It's that simple.

So you uncle opens up a "Montana" gun shop next door.

Yes I know this is a simplistic view compared to the current Montana laws in place. But I could see those changing too.

hoffmang
07-20-2009, 10:14 PM
Gene wouldn't it also make it a no carry on UT permit in Nevada too? Too bad it just doesn't do a shall issue across the country for any state that allows CCW.

Thune's bill would allow a CA resident with a UT CCW to carry in Nevada again.

-Gene

LAK Supply
07-20-2009, 10:24 PM
Hehe... doesn't the ATF consider refinishing a gun to be "manufacturing?" It would be kind of ironic if their own "regs" (assuming they have the constitutional authority to help the foxes guard the henhouse by making "regs" anyway) came back to bite them in their crooked, elitist, bottom feeding little asses. :)

leitung
07-20-2009, 10:55 PM
So basically, this bill is useless for CA residents to carry in CA who cant get a permit but we can carry on a UT permit everywhere else. (minus IL, WI, and DC)

but Nevada residents can carry here no problem.. Strange..

So on my ME permit I could carry nationwide with except for IL, WI, CA and DC?

Major sweet, I am planning a trip to NYC, Hawaii, and all the other places they want people to be unarmed.

ilbob
07-21-2009, 5:21 AM
You did not really expect that the feds would just roll over, did you?

jmlivingston
07-21-2009, 5:43 AM
I don't know of a single gun maker in Montana.

Cooper Firearms (http://cooperfirearms.com/)

MolonLabe2008
07-21-2009, 6:15 AM
I guess Alaska will be getting their letter from the ATF soon.

gn3hz3ku1*
07-21-2009, 8:51 AM
ahhh man i was going to buy a ccw gun if this passes... back to waiting for gene and crew to save CA again :)

Ron-Solo
07-21-2009, 9:10 AM
Montana promised to arrest any federal agent who tries to interfere with their plans to do their own thing. Then the **** will hit the fan. I would love to see Obama try to pull martial law on them.

There's a joke. No matter what some blowhard in Montana says, as long as they're in the Union, they are subject to Federal law. Seems like someone tried this B/S back in 1861. Even less of a chance of success now.

Reality Check!

command_liner
07-21-2009, 9:36 AM
It is a beautiful sight.

Schumer is in the Senate claiming 'STATES RIGHTS! States must have
the ability to write their own gun laws!' At the same time, the ATF is
shouting 'NO STATES RIGHTS! States CANNOT write their own gun laws!'

OK, which is it?

nhanson
07-21-2009, 9:41 AM
If it passes as is it would do the following interesting things:
1. CA Residents would not be allowed to CCW in CA on a UT permit.
2. A CA resident in possession of a UT permit would be able to carry everywhere except CA, IL, DC, and WI.
3. A WA resident would be exempted from the Gun Free School Zones act when carrying in CA on his WA resident permit.

-Gene

So, an individual with a CA CCW would be golden everywhere there is some CCW issuing policy?

And states like WI, IL and Federal enclave of DC would still be off limits?

Norm

woodsman
07-21-2009, 9:42 AM
It is a beautiful sight.

Schumer is in the Senate claiming 'STATES RIGHTS! States must have
the ability to write their own gun laws!' At the same time, the ATF is
shouting 'NO STATES RIGHTS! States CANNOT write their own gun laws!'

OK, which is it?

Yep!

Grab the popcorn.

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2009, 10:16 AM
It is a beautiful sight.

Schumer is in the Senate claiming 'STATES RIGHTS! States must have
the ability to write their own gun laws!' At the same time, the ATF is
shouting 'NO STATES RIGHTS! States CANNOT write their own gun laws!'

OK, which is it?

Ding Ding, you get the prize!

Flopper
07-21-2009, 11:09 AM
There's a joke. No matter what some blowhard in Montana says, as long as they're in the Union, they are subject to Federal law. Seems like someone tried this B/S back in 1861. Even less of a chance of success now.

Reality Check!

Contrary to popular belief, Federal Law does not trump State's Rights, and that's what this fight is all about.

Quemtimebo
07-21-2009, 11:52 AM
There's a joke. No matter what some blowhard in Montana says, as long as they're in the Union, they are subject to Federal law. Seems like someone tried this B/S back in 1861. Even less of a chance of success now.

Reality Check!


Excuse me, B/S? :rolleyes: Show me where, in the Constitution of the United States, it is claimed that states are subject to Federal law in all things?


Here's a bit of reading for you: http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248205786&sr=8-1

7x57
07-21-2009, 12:06 PM
There's a joke. No matter what some blowhard in Montana says, as long as they're in the Union, they are subject to Federal law. Seems like someone tried this B/S back in 1861. Even less of a chance of success now.


You have the problem backwards. The law gives meaningful sovereignty to the states, and Montana (with many others) has said they want that law obeyed. The issue in question is whether the Federal government can be compelled to obey the law. The best bets are that it has no intention of obeying it and has every chance of getting away with it. :eek:

7x57

Asphodel
07-21-2009, 12:17 PM
Now, I have to admit that this question is asked purely from sheer ignorance.....I've not researched the subject, and simply don't know.

I am curious, tho.......back in the 1950's, the Federal Interstate Highway System was promoted as a 'National Defense' structure by the Eisenhower Administration, presumably after evaluation of the purpose of the Autobahn system in Germany.

If I remember correctly, the massive funding for the Federal Interstate Highway system was promoted as an 'Essential National Defense Measure', to obtain compliance from some states which opposed the expenditure for the system.

If I remember correctly, wasn't there some amount of controversy regarding states' rights relative to the Federal Interstate Highway regulatory structure, so the question would be whether there might.....in some way.....been legal structures devised in which the various states subjected themselves to a Federal Defense organisation, in a way which abrogated some forms of states' rights, and established Federal jurisdiction over some areas of the states, creating, in effect, zones of Federal control, where Federal law would supersede state law?

If any such provisions exist, then has the Federal Government a plausible claim of control over any 'implement of defense' within such a state?

Conversely, could it be shown that the Federal Government has the empowerment to transport 'implements of National Defense' (vehicle-mounted missile systems, radar, command and control vehicles, etc.) over Federal Highways without interference from the states, but may not impede the movement of personal arms (2nd Amemdment level arms) within the state, even tho those arms may move over Federal Highway system property?

This may, these days, be simply a silly question, I must admit....but I am curious....

cheers

Carla

nhanson
07-21-2009, 12:44 PM
:threadjacked:

kalguns
07-21-2009, 2:06 PM
Acording to this artical it goes to vote tomorrow.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/19296

press1280
07-21-2009, 2:15 PM
So, an individual with a CA CCW would be golden everywhere there is some CCW issuing policy?

And states like WI, IL and Federal enclave of DC would still be off limits?

Norm

I believe you would be able to carry in DC because there "technically" is a DC carry permit. What I've heard is they won't issue to anyone except retired DC police.

leitung
07-21-2009, 2:29 PM
I believe you would be able to carry in DC because there "technically" is a DC carry permit. What I've heard is they won't issue to anyone except retired DC police.

Thats what I thought as well, but now that HR 288 is in effect I wonder if they even use it anymore.

I really wonder how many DC police accually live in the District.

Santa Cruz Armory
07-21-2009, 2:35 PM
Here is the actual text of the proposed amendment:



If it passes as is it would do the following interesting things:
1. CA Residents would not be allowed to CCW in CA on a UT permit.
2. A CA resident in possession of a UT permit would be able to carry everywhere except CA, IL, DC, and WI.
3. A WA resident would be exempted from the Gun Free School Zones act when carrying in CA on his WA resident permit.

-Gene

What about carrying in CA on a FL or NV permit?

kalguns
07-21-2009, 2:38 PM
So too carry in CA you have to have a CA permit????

Also, I sent this to Boxer and Fienstien

According to the media Sen. John Thune, R-S.D bill on carrying concealed weapons permit is going up for vote tomorrow. I would hope you vote in favor of his bill thus making America safer for honest, hard working law abiding citizens, like myself and my family.

Thank you for your time,

bodger
07-21-2009, 2:39 PM
Has anyone seen Brady Bunch this list of crimes and "misdeeds" supposedly perpetrated by killer CCW holders?http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

It's the Brady propaganda post against the Thune Amendment. Some incidents go all the way back to 1996. Problem is, they seem to be lumping every known evil-doer who ever used a gun into their list. Not all of the incidents they cite were done by people with CCWs. In fact, in one case, all they say is the names of two people who were shot in the street outside a party.

I guess in their minds, if you do crime with a gun, you probably had a CCW.
What a joke.

grammaton76
07-21-2009, 2:55 PM
Hmm. Dual residency point:

A CA/AZ resident would have an AZ permit. Because of his CA residency, he would be forbidden to use his AZ permit. He would thus have to surrender his CA residency status in order to be AZ-only, before he could carry in CA.

hoffmang
07-21-2009, 3:01 PM
So too carry in CA you have to have a CA permit????


A California resident is required to have a California permit to carry in California. That's respecting states rights whether we like that or not.

Congress has the ability to pass this law under either or both of the Commerce Clause or the Full Faith and Credit clause.

-Gene

vrand
07-21-2009, 3:05 PM
The people of Montana must follow federal laws if they are to keep their FFL and sell guns from other states. I don't know of a single gun maker in Montana. If they want to continue to sell Colt, Springfields, Smith and Wessons, etc, they must follow the ATF laws to keep their FFL. If a gun shop in Montana starts selling guns that are 100% produced in Montana, that's fine, but they will lose their FFL. It's that simple.

Badges? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!

(Replace the word Badges with FFL)

:thumbsup:

rkdrsx
07-21-2009, 3:22 PM
So let’s say it passes tomorrow, it still has to go through a joint conference, another vote in both houses and then go to the President. Its also the end of the month and those guys in D.C. like to take August off. So if all goes well this amendment would become law…..just in time for Christmas?

yellowfin
07-21-2009, 4:10 PM
I guess Montana and Tennessee could just issue state firearms dealers licenses strictly for in state sales to get around the FFL problem.

Fissssh
07-21-2009, 4:43 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Senator Feinstein Opposes Concealed Weapons Amendment


-Amendment would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states-


Washington, D.C. –U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today voiced strong opposition to an amendment to the defense authorization bill which would undermine California’s rigorous state standards that regulate who may carry a concealed weapon.

The Concealed Carry Permitting Amendment (#1618), offered by Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), would effectively allow the concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun possession in other states. It would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued elsewhere.

“I believe this amendment is reckless,” Senator Feinstein said. “I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our nation. And, of course, if successful, it is another step in a march to remove all common-sense gun regulations all over this land.”

“Concealed weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York,” Senator Feinstein added.

Senator Feinstein joined Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in a news conference to voice their opposition to Senator Thune’s amendment.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also wrote a letter to Senator Feinstein, urging her to vote no on the amendment. (See attachment)

“This is a simple question of protecting California’s ability to determine who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon within our borders,” Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote. “I have consistently supported states’ rights to determine their own fates on a variety of issues. This amendment would trample the rights I have worked hard to protect."

# # #

7x57
07-21-2009, 5:02 PM
Congress has the ability to pass this law under either or both of the Commerce Clause or the Full Faith and Credit clause.


Somehow I doubt that this would have qualified as "commerce" in the minds of the authors or their contemporaries; that probably implies buying and selling for profit (though there is a broader meaning of "commerce" which you might be able to show was accepted even back then, and I'd accept that if demonstrated). OTOH, under the current interpretation it means everything and anything at all, so why even bother to say CC covers it? It covers everything. I bet you just assume everyone knows you're an air-breathing life form without introducing yourself that way too. :-)

Full Faith and Credit seems entirely reasonable, though there must be historically understood limits that I simply don't know about. Seems too dependent on context for me to guess the limits.

7x57

erblo
07-21-2009, 5:22 PM
Has anyone seen Brady Bunch this list of crimes and "misdeeds" supposedly perpetrated by killer CCW holders?http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

It's the Brady propaganda post against the Thune Amendment. Some incidents go all the way back to 1996. Problem is, they seem to be lumping every known evil-doer who ever used a gun into their list. Not all of the incidents they cite were done by people with CCWs. In fact, in one case, all they say is the names of two people who were shot in the street outside a party.

I guess in their minds, if you do crime with a gun, you probably had a CCW.
What a joke.

Oh man this list is hilarious. In some cases, the fact that they had a CCW is inconsequential.

- One guy used a rifle to go on a killing spree, which he couldn't do without a CCW?
- A woman shot an officer when the FBI "entered" their house to serve a warrant. The woman thought her house was being broken into (sounds reasonable?)

The list goes on. I don't understand how these crimes would have been any different without a CCW??

bodger
07-21-2009, 5:42 PM
Oh man this list is hilarious. In some cases, the fact that they had a CCW is inconsequential.

- One guy used a rifle to go on a killing spree, which he couldn't do without a CCW?
- A woman shot an officer when the FBI "entered" their house to serve a warrant. The woman thought her house was being broken into (sounds reasonable?)

The list goes on. I don't understand how these crimes would have been any different without a CCW??

Yeah, and the specifically cite Jiverly Wong, the guy who shot those people in Binghampton NY. As "Licensed to carry firearms". He did NOT have a CCW, just had firearms that he had purchased himself.

And also, the rapper "Dolla" who got shot in LA at the Beverly Center. I never heard anything about his assailant having a CCW.

I think they're just lumping as many killers into the pile as they can.
Obviously, all people with guns are murderers, so if we don't get issued a CCW, the world will be safe from us.

It truly boggles my mind. It's as if they are kindergarten teachers and in their eyes, we're all little kids playing with sharp sticks that could poke our eyes out. If we allowed to have scissors, we will surely run with them and someone might get hurt.

Dirtbozz
07-21-2009, 7:51 PM
If it passes as is it would do the following interesting things:
1. CA Residents would not be allowed to CCW in CA on a UT permit.
2. A CA resident in possession of a UT permit would be able to carry everywhere except CA, IL, DC, and WI.
3. A WA resident would be exempted from the Gun Free School Zones act when carrying in CA on his WA resident permit.

-Gene

I have read Thune's bill a couple of times. I do not see a provision that indicates that the permit must be issued by the persons state of residence (please point it out if I missed it). If that were the case, it would not work in Nevada and other states without reciprocity with Utah non-resident permits.

I see the last two statements that shield states from interference in the "permitting process" by this bill. A resident of CA carrying in CA with a Utah non-res. permit, in my mind, would not interfere with the "process" of issuing permits here. This bill would not force CA to issue permits to it's residents. CA would still have the right to deny "CA" permits to it's residents.

It seems a bit illogical that CA residents with a Utah non-res. permit would be able to carry in Nevada again, as you indicate, but not in California. Either non-res. permits are good in all states (except the two exclusions indicated in the bill) or they are not.

Is there a specific law on the books in California that caused you to come to your conclusion?

Gene, please point out where I am wrong.

7x57
07-21-2009, 8:06 PM
I guess Montana and Tennessee could just issue state firearms dealers licenses strictly for in state sales to get around the FFL problem.

Some of those states may instead insist that no special license is needed. Why throw off the yoke (assuming just for a moment that this has a chance of being realized) and then create an imitation yoke of your own?

7x57

yellowfin
07-21-2009, 8:43 PM
Yeah, and the specifically cite Jiverly Wong, the guy who shot those people in Binghampton NY. As "Licensed to carry firearms". He did NOT have a CCW, just had firearms that he had purchased himself.In NYS you have to have a CCW to own a pistol or even touch one or it's a felony on you.

"And, of course, if successful, it is another step in a march to remove all common-sense gun regulations all over this land.” And the problem with that is what, exactly?

yellowfin
07-21-2009, 8:45 PM
Some of those states may instead insist that no special license is needed. Why throw off the yoke (assuming just for a moment that this has a chance of being realized) and then create an imitation yoke of your own?

7x57 I'm just saying they need an entity other than as an FFL to sell under so the FFL's don't jeopardize their status and/or doesn't give the feds the ability to say they're under their roof so they have to play by fed's rules. Don't sell a TN or MT made firearm by/with/as an FFL.

Cali-V
07-21-2009, 8:52 PM
It looks like the biggest effect this amendment would have here in CA is reciprocity... CCW permits held by non-residents would become valid!

I believe, regarding CCW, we currently have no bilateral relationships...

ke6guj
07-21-2009, 9:10 PM
I have read Thune's bill a couple of times. I do not see a provision that indicates that the permit must be issued by the persons state of residence (please point it out if I missed it). If that were the case, it would not work in Nevada and other states without reciprocity with Utah non-resident permits.


Look here

(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

.if you have a CCW issued by any state, this law would make good in all CCW'able states other than your state of residence


If they wanted to include using an non-resident CCW in your home state, they would have just said "may carry a concealed fiream in any State that-- , and not included the "other than the State of residence" verbage.

bodger
07-21-2009, 9:10 PM
In NYS you have to have a CCW to own a pistol or even touch one or it's a felony on you.


"A license to possess a handgun serves also as a license to carry unless restricted"

I did not know this. So anyone who can legally purchase, own, and possess a handgun in NYS can also carry it loaded and concealed.

That's amazing. ....So that nut job that shot up Binghampton had a CCW.

Dirtbozz
07-21-2009, 10:13 PM
Look here

if you have a CCW issued by any state, this law would make good in all CCW'able states other than your state of residence


If they wanted to include using an non-resident CCW in your home state, they would have just said "may carry a concealed fiream in any State that-- , and not included the "other than the State of residence" verbage.

I missed the verbiage in that section. It seems that they are willing to trample on states rights in some of the other 49 states, as they are forcing those states to accept non-res. permits that they do not want to accept. It still seems illogical to me. It should be one or the other. I guess they made a concession to appease some. Unfortunate for us.

mblat
07-21-2009, 10:19 PM
I missed the verbiage in that section. It seems that they are willing to trample on states rights in some of the other 49 states, as they are forcing those states to accept non-res. permits that they do not want to accept. It still seems illogical to me. It should be one or the other. I guess they made a concession to appease some. Unfortunate for us.

Actually seems very logical. It is respectful to State rights ( issue in any way you want ) and it likely to make it totally immune to any lawsuit since it is clearly limited to either interstate commerce and faith and credits with no interference with internal State affairs.

May be unfortunate for us..... for some time..... but really if this passes how long do you think "may issue" will survive?

ke6guj
07-21-2009, 10:23 PM
Actually seems very logical. It is respectful to State rights ( issue in any way you want ) and it likely to make it totally immune to any lawsuit since it is clearly limited to either interstate commerce and faith and credits with no interference with internal State affairs. on the face of it, yes, it respect State's rights, but there are probably equal protection issues with out-of-state residents having more CCW rights while in CA than your average CA resident.

May be unfortunate for us..... for some time..... but really if this passes how long do you think "may issue" will survive?as I mentioned in another thread, CA might look at all those Californian CCW dollars going to states like UT for non-resident permits and decide to go "shall issue" in order to keep the CCW money in-state.

mblat
07-21-2009, 10:26 PM
on the face of it, yes, it respect State's rights, but there are probably equal protection issues with out-of-state residents having more CCW rights while in CA than your average CA resident.


exactly.... that will be for courts to decide.... and I don't see current CA policy surviving.


as I mentioned in another thread, CA might look at all those Californian CCW dollars going to states like UT for non-resident permits and decide to go "shall issue" in order to keep the CCW money in-state.

If only our lawmakers would be so logical.... no, I don't think so. The only way we are getting "shall issue" is through federal judge.

Cali-V
07-21-2009, 11:18 PM
So, if this amendment stands

Someone could convene a National CCW Permit Holder Convention, and this gathering could be held in venue like San Francisco's Moscone Center...

wow, 1000's of non-resident CCW's in the City... my oh my...

Mulay El Raisuli
07-22-2009, 6:45 AM
So, if this amendment stands

Someone could convene a National CCW Permit Holder Convention, and this gathering could be held in venue like San Francisco's Moscone Center...

wow, 1000's of non-resident CCW's in the City... my oh my...



Oh, the very thought of that makes my head spin.

The Raisuli

Decoligny
07-22-2009, 7:38 AM
I missed the verbiage in that section. It seems that they are willing to trample on states rights in some of the other 49 states, as they are forcing those states to accept non-res. permits that they do not want to accept. It still seems illogical to me. It should be one or the other. I guess they made a concession to appease some. Unfortunate for us.

They are simply making a way for the residents of the two states that prohibit concealed carry to be able to carry concealed in other states. It also allows residents of Vermont to concealed carry in other states as Vermont has no state issued CCW license, anyone who can own a gun can concealed or open carry one.

This also allows for the prisoners residents of California who are under the "May (Won't) Issue" policy to be able to carry concealed in other states.

WhatRU
07-22-2009, 7:38 AM
Look here

if you have a CCW issued by any state, this law would make good in all CCW'able states other than your state of residence

If they wanted to include using an non-resident CCW in your home state, they would have just said "may carry a concealed fiream in any State that-- , and not included the "other than the State of residence" verbage.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the current version of the proposed amendment?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s371/text

It appears to allow a non-res Utah CCW permit be valid for a Cal resident. Section (1) applies to our discussion.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

It appears to allow a non-res Utah CCW permit be valid for a Cal resident.

forgiven
07-22-2009, 7:39 AM
Schumer is a slimey leaking pimple on a pigs -ss. Man, that creep makes me sick. Why doesn't he just come out and say he was born a girl stuck in a so-called man's body. My dad always told me "you don't give boys dolls to play with" he sure must of had a room full.

cindynles
07-22-2009, 7:42 AM
So, if this amendment stands

Someone could convene a National CCW Permit Holder Convention, and this gathering could be held in venue like San Francisco's Moscone Center...

wow, 1000's of non-resident CCW's in the City... my oh my...

It could be a pay per view event. Someone could follow Gavin around with a camera and get his reaction when he found out about it. I would pay $29.99 to see that.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 8:18 AM
The vote is going on as we speak. but til the last vote is in I am going to sit and wait. Although Pelosi looks like she is about to have a fit.

tango-52
07-22-2009, 8:32 AM
Amendment failed to get the requireed 60 votes, Final score Aye 58, No 39.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 8:34 AM
According to C-Span 2 they needed 61 votes so it failed by three votes. Although I am wondering if it could be up for another vote since the Senate Minority Whip is up giving a speech. I am wondering if this will now change the tide of the reps come the next election for them....Now they say two votes. Gah C-Span is worse than normal news channels.

Dirtbozz
07-22-2009, 8:42 AM
Amendment failed to get the requireed 60 votes, Final score Aye 58, No 39.

Although the amendment did not pass, it shows that things are moving in our favor. I'm disappointed the failure to pass, but heartened by the good showing.

Things are looking up. :clap:

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 9:10 AM
Although the amendment did not pass, it shows that things are moving in our favor. I'm disappointed the failure to pass, but heartened by the good showing.

Things are looking up. :clap:

Don't get TOO excited.

Failure by 3 votes is still failure by 3 votes. Democrats from pro-gun districts were likely told, "We have X no votes guaranteed, so you can vote for this one to look good to your base."

We have no idea just how close this vote REALLY was.

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 9:19 AM
^ Agreed, it does look like 7-8 states' worth of senators were being puppeteered by the likes of Schumer and Feinslime saying you'd better vote no or you're not getting DNC funding. 40 Shall issue states equals 80 senators so there is a distinct problem here.

Cali-V
07-22-2009, 9:30 AM
Remember the senate is not the house...
Totally different dynamics... A Sentors "base" is a kinda fluid... with a heavier tint of green...

berto
07-22-2009, 9:30 AM
Here's the vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

Kennedy, Byrd, and Mikulski didn't vote. Gillibrand followed Schumer's lead. Lugar and Voinovich voted NO but Collins and Snowe voted Yes. Shenanigans all around.

grammaton76 is correct, the vote is weird and some folks may have been released to vote how they needed to for the sake of appearances. If it was really going to be close Kennedy and Byrd would have dragged their butts in voted. I don't know why Mikulski is out but I imagine she would have shown up too.

.454
07-22-2009, 9:44 AM
2 RINOS, the rest of NAY = Democrats. Thank you very much.
Hey, but why worry? When pulling the lever you have to consider there are more important issues than guns and anyway, guns are just a hobby. Remember?

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 9:53 AM
As much as folks from other states rag on us, you'd think that progun states like Iowa and Indiana and Vermont could do something about their Senators.

Decoligny
07-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Lugar and Voinovich would have provided the two votes necessary for the minimum of 60 needed for this to pass.

A festering pox upon them and their progeny for all time.

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 10:24 AM
I'll venture to say Buckeye Firearms Association will NOT be kind to Voinovich for this one nor will Iowa's and Indiana's associations to theirs.

CalNRA
07-22-2009, 10:31 AM
Don't get TOO excited.

Failure by 3 votes is still failure by 3 votes. Democrats from pro-gun districts were likely told, "We have X no votes guaranteed, so you can vote for this one to look good to your base."

We have no idea just how close this vote REALLY was.

yep.

this sounded like a carefully orchastrated charade for the DNC to give their members a "pro-gun" appearance for the '10 election cycle.

Now those twenty dems can go home and parade themselves as 2nd-friendly. That's possibily the only reason the bill was allowed to be brought out of committee by no other than Harry "income tax is voluntary" Reid.

And those RINOs can just go **** themselves.

berto
07-22-2009, 10:33 AM
I'll venture to say Buckeye Firearms Association will NOT be kind to Voinovich for this one nor will Iowa's and Indiana's associations to theirs.

Voinovich is an anti and isn't running for re-election next year. There's no cost to him.

Lugar is an institution in Indiana and doesn't face re-election until 2012 when he'll be 80. The dems didn't run anybody against him in 2006.